Editing Reform Judaism (section)

==History==

===Beginnings===
{{Main|Hamburg Temple disputes}}
[[File:Hamburg1818b.jpg|upright=0.9|thumb|right|A segment of the 1818 Hamburg prayer book. Stating "accept '''the uttering of our lips instead of [[Korban|our obligatory sacrifices]]'''" and omitting the traditional "[[Gathering of Israel|O gather our dispersions]]... Conduct us [[Third Temple|unto Zion]]" passage.]]

With the advent of [[Jewish emancipation]] and [[acculturation]] in Central Europe during the late 18th century, and the breakdown of traditional Jewish life, the proper response to the changed circumstances became a heated concern. Radical, second-generation Berlin ''[[maskilim]]'' (Enlightened), like [[Lazarus Bendavid]] and [[David Friedländer]], proposed to reduce Judaism to little above [[Deism]], or allow it to dissipate entirely. A more palatable course was the reform of worship in synagogues, making them more attractive to a generation whose aesthetic and moral taste became attuned to that of Christian surroundings.<ref>Meyer, ''Response'', pp. 16–22.</ref> The first considered to have implemented such a course was the [[Amsterdam]] [[Ashkenazi]] congregation, "Adath Jessurun", In 1796. Emulating the local [[Sephardim|Sephardic]] custom, it omitted the "[[Av HaRachamim|Father of Mercy]]" prayer, beseeching God to take revenge upon the gentiles. The short-lived community employed fully traditional ("orthodox") argumentation to legitimize its actions, but is often regarded a harbinger by historians.<ref>David Harry Ellenson, ''After Emancipation: Jewish Religious Responses to Modernity'', Hebrew Union College Press, 2004. p. 103.</ref>

A relatively thoroughgoing program was adopted by [[Israel Jacobson]], a philanthropist from the [[Kingdom of Westphalia]]. Faith and observance were eroded for decades both by Enlightenment criticism and apathy, but Jacobson himself did not bother with those. He was interested in decorum, believing its lack in services was driving the young away. Many of the aesthetic reforms he pioneered, like a regular vernacular sermon on moralistic themes, would be later adopted by the [[Torah im Derech Eretz|modernist Orthodox]].<ref>Michael K. Silber, [http://www.yivoencyclopedia.org/article.aspx/Orthodoxy "Orthodoxy"], [[The YIVO Encyclopedia of Jews in Eastern Europe]].</ref> On 17 July 1810, he dedicated a synagogue in [[Seesen]] that employed an organ and a choir during prayer and introduced some German liturgy. While Jacobson was far from full-fledged Reform Judaism, this day was adopted by the movement worldwide as its foundation date. The Seesen temple – a designation quite common for prayerhouses at the time; "temple" would later become, somewhat misleadingly (and not exclusively), identified with Reform institutions via association with the elimination of prayers for the Jerusalem Temple<ref>Meyer, p. 42.</ref> – closed in 1813. Jacobson moved to Berlin and established a similar synagogue, which became a hub for like-minded intellectuals, interested in the betterment of religious experience. Though the prayerbook used in Berlin did introduce several deviations from the received text, it did so without an organizing principle. In 1818, Jacobson's acquaintance Edward Kley founded the [[Hamburg Temple]]. Here, changes in the rite were eclectic no more and had severe dogmatic implications: prayers for the [[Third Temple|restoration of sacrifices]] by the [[Messiah in Judaism|Messiah]] and [[Gathering of Israel|Return to Zion]] were quite systematically omitted. The Hamburg edition is considered the first comprehensive Reform liturgy.

While Orthodox protests to Jacobson's initiatives had been scant, [[Hamburg Temple disputes|dozens of rabbis throughout Europe united to ban the Hamburg Temple]]. The Hamburg reformers, still attempting to play within the limits of rabbinic tradition, cited canonical sources in defence of their actions; they had the grudging support of one liberal-minded rabbi, [[Aaron Chorin]] of [[Arad, Romania|Arad]], though even he never acceded to the removal of prayers for the sacrifices. 

The massive Orthodox reaction halted the advance of early Reform, confining it to the port city for the next twenty years. As acculturation and resulting religious apathy spread, many synagogues introduced mild aesthetic changes, such as vernacular sermons or somber conduct, yet these were carefully crafted to assuage conservative elements (though the staunchly Orthodox opposed them anyhow; secular education for rabbis, for example, was much resisted). One of the first to adopt such modifications was Hamburg's own Orthodox community, under the newly appointed modern Rabbi [[Isaac Bernays]]. The less strict but still traditional [[Isaac Noah Mannheimer]] of the [[Vienna]] [[Stadttempel]] and [[Michael Sachs (rabbi)|Michael Sachs]] in [[Prague]], set the pace for most of Central and Western Europe. They significantly altered custom, but wholly avoided dogmatic issues or overt injury to Jewish Law.<ref>Meyer, ''Response'', pp. 55–58, 111–115, 150–157.</ref>

[[File:ReformHarby.jpg|upright=0.9|thumb|right|A passage from the Reformed Society's prayerbook, which was mostly in English and theologically more radical than Hamburg's.]]
An isolated, yet much more radical step in the same direction as Hamburg's, was taken across the ocean in 1824. The younger congregants in the [[Charleston, South Carolina|Charleston]] synagogue "[[Congregation Kahal Kadosh Beth Elohim|Beth Elohim]]" were disgruntled by present conditions and demanded change. Led by [[Isaac Harby]] and other associates, they formed their own prayer group, "The Reformed Society of Israelites". Apart from strictly aesthetic matters, like having sermons and synagogue affairs delivered in English, rather than [[Middle Spanish]] (as was customary among [[Western Sephardim]]), they had almost their entire liturgy solely in the vernacular, in a far greater proportion compared to the Hamburg rite. And chiefly, they felt little attachment to the traditional Messianic doctrine and possessed a clearly heterodox religious understanding. In their new prayerbook, authors Harby, Abram Moïse and David Nunes Carvalho unequivocally excised pleas for the restoration of the Jerusalem Temple; during his inaugural address on 21 November 1825, Harby stated their native country was their only Zion, not "some stony desert", and described the rabbis of old as "Fabulists and Sophists... Who tortured the plainest precepts of the Law into monstrous and unexpected inferences". The Society was short-lived, and they merged back into Beth Elohim in 1833. As in Germany, the reformers were laymen, operating in a country with little rabbinic presence.<ref>Meyer, ''Response'', pp. 232–235. See Harby's discourse in: [https://books.google.com/books?id=dc49rZ-qc_YC&pg=PA57 ''A Selection from the Miscellaneous Writings of the Late Isaac Harby, Esq'', 1829, p. 57]. See also: [https://archive.org/details/sabbathservicemi00refo The Sabbath service and miscellaneous prayers, adopted by the Reformed society of Israelites, founded in Charleston, S. C., November 21, 1825].</ref><ref name="Chryssides">{{cite encyclopedia |title=Reform Judaism |surname=Chryssides |given=George |author-link=George Chryssides |encyclopedia=Encyclopedia of new religious movements |page=525 |publisher=Routledge |year=2006 |editor-surname=Clarke |editor-given=Peter B. |editor-link=Peter B. Clarke |place=London; New York |isbn=9-78-0-415-26707-6}}</ref>

===Consolidation in German lands===
[[File:YoungGeiger.png|upright=0.9|thumb|right|Rabbi [[Abraham Geiger]], circa 1840.]]
[[File:SamuelHoldheim.jpg|upright=0.8|thumb|right|Rabbi [[Samuel Holdheim]], circa 1850.]]
In the 1820s and 1830s, philosophers like [[Solomon Steinheim]] imported [[German idealism]] into the Jewish religious discourse, attempting to draw from the means it employed to reconcile Christian faith and modern sensibilities. But it was the new scholarly, critical Science of Judaism (''[[Wissenschaft des Judentums]]'') that became the focus of controversy. Its proponents vacillated whether and to what degree it should be applied against the contemporary plight. Opinions ranged from the strictly Orthodox [[Azriel Hildesheimer]], who subjugated research to the predetermined sanctity of the texts and refused to allow it practical implication over received methods; via the Positive-Historical [[Zecharias Frankel]], who did not deny ''Wissenschaft'' a role, but only in deference to tradition, and opposed analysis of the [[Pentateuch]]; and up to [[Abraham Geiger]], who rejected any limitations on objective research or its application. He is considered the founding father of Reform Judaism.<ref>Michael A. Meyer, ''Response to Modernity: A History of the Reform Movement in Judaism'', Wayne State University Press, 1995. pp. 89–99.</ref>

Geiger wrote that at seventeen already, he discerned that the late ''[[Tannaim]]'' and the ''[[Amoraim]]'' imposed a subjective interpretation on the [[Oral Torah]], attempting to diffuse its revolutionary potential by [[Midrash halakha|linking it to the biblical text]]. Believing that Judaism became stale and had to be radically transformed if it were to survive modernity, he found little use in the legal procedures of ''halakha'', arguing that hardline rabbis often demonstrated they will not accept major innovations anyway. His venture into [[higher criticism]] led him to regard the Pentateuch as reflecting power struggles between the [[Pharisees]] on one hand, and the [[Saducees]] who had their own pre-[[Mishna]]ic ''halakha''. Having concluded the belief in an unbroken tradition back to Sinai or a divinely dictated Torah could not be maintained, he began to articulate a theology of progressive revelation, presenting the Pharisees as reformers who revolutionized the Saducee-dominated religion. His other model were the Prophets, whose morals and ethics were to him the only true, permanent core of Judaism. He was not alone: [[Solomon Formstecher]] argued that Revelation was God's influence on human psyche, rather than encapsulated in law; [[Aaron Bernstein]] was apparently the first to deny inherent sanctity to any text when he wrote in 1844 that, "The Pentateuch is not a ''chronicle'' of God's revelation, it is a ''testimony'' to the inspiration His consciousness had on our forebears." Many others shared similar convictions.<ref>Meyer, ''Response'', pp. 125–127.</ref>

In 1837, Geiger hosted a conference of like-minded young rabbis in [[Wiesbaden]]. He told the assembled that the "[[Talmud]] must go". In 1841, the Hamburg Temple issued a second edition of its prayerbook, the first Reform liturgy since its predecessor of 1818. Orthodox response was weak and quickly defeated. Most rabbinic posts in Germany were now manned by university graduates susceptible to rationalistic ideas, which also permeated liberal Protestantism led by such figures as [[Leberecht Uhlich]]. They formed the backbone of the nascent Reform rabbinate. Geiger intervened in the Second [[Hamburg Temple controversy]] not just to defend the prayerbook against the Orthodox, but also to denounce it, stating the time of mainly aesthetic and unsystematic reforms has passed. In 1842, the power of progressive forces was revealed again: when Geiger's superior Rabbi Solomon Tiktin attempted to dismiss him from the post of preacher in [[Breslau]], 15 of 17 rabbis consulted by the board stated his unorthodox views were congruous with his post. He himself differentiated between his principled stance and quotidian conduct. Believing it could be implemented only carefully, he was moderate in practice and remained personally observant.

Second only to Geiger, Rabbi [[Samuel Holdheim]] distinguished himself as a radical proponent of change. While the former stressed continuity with the past and described Judaism as an entity that gradually adopted and discarded elements along time, Holdheim accorded present conditions the highest status, sharply dividing the universalist core from all other aspects that could be unremittingly disposed of. Declaring that old laws lost their hold on Jews as it were and the rabbi could only act as a guide for voluntary observance, his principle was that the concept of "[[Dina d'malkhuta dina|the Law of the Land is the Law]]" was total. He declared mixed marriage permissible – almost the only Reform rabbi to do so in history; his contemporaries and later generations opposed this – for the Talmudic ban on conducting them on Sabbath, unlike offering sacrifice and other acts, was to him sufficient demonstration that they belonged not to the category of sanctified obligations (''issurim'') but to the civil ones (''memonot''), where the Law of the Land applied. Another measure he offered, rejected almost unanimously by his colleagues in 1846, was the institution of a "Second Sabbath" on Sunday, modeled on [[Second Passover]], as most people desecrated the day of rest.<ref>[[David Ellenson]], ''Rabbi Esriel Hildesheimer and the Creation of a Modern Jewish Orthodoxy'', University of Alabama Press, 1990. p. 65.</ref>

The pressures of the late [[Vormärz]] era were intensifying. In 1842, a group of radical laymen determined to achieve full acceptance into society was founded in Frankfurt, the "Friends of Reform". They abolished circumcision and declared that the Talmud was no longer binding. In response to pleas from Frankfurt, virtually all rabbis in Germany, even Holdheim, declared circumcision obligatory. Similar groups sprang in Breslau and Berlin. These developments, and the need to bring uniformity to practical reforms implemented piecemeal in the various communities, motivated Geiger and his like-minded supporters into action. Between 1844 and 1846, they convened three rabbinical assemblies, in [[Braunschweig]], [[Frankfurt am Main]] and [[Breslau]] respectively. Those were intended to implement the proposals of [[Aaron Chorin]] and others for a new ''[[Sanhedrin]]'', made already in 1826, that could assess and eliminate various ancient decrees and prohibitions. A total of forty-two people attended the three meetings, including moderates and conservatives, all quite young, usually in their thirties.<ref name="Low">Steven M. Lowenstein, "The 1840s and the Creation of the German-Jewish Religious Reform Movement", in: Werner E. Mosse ed., ''Revolution and Evolution, 1848 in German-Jewish History'', Mohr Siebeck, 1981. pp. 258–266.</ref>

The conferences made few concrete far-reaching steps, albeit they generally stated that the old mechanisms of religious interpretation were obsolete. The first, held on 12–19 June 1844, abolished ''[[Kol Nidrei]]'' and the humiliating [[Jewish oath]], still administered by rabbis, and established a committee to determine "to which degree the Messianic ideal should be mentioned in prayer". Repeating the response of the 1806 Paris [[Grand Sanhedrin]] to [[Napoleon]], it declared intermarriage permissible as long as children could be raised Jewish; this measure effectively banned such unions without offending Christians, as no state in Germany allowed mixed-faith couples to have non-Christians education for offspring. It enraged critics anyhow. A small group of traditionalists also attended, losing all votes. On the opposite wing were sympathizers of Holdheim, who declared on 17 June that "science already demonstrated that the Talmud has no authority either from the dogmatic or practical perspective... The men of the [[Great Assembly]] had jurisdiction only for their time. We possess the same power, when we express the spirit of ours." The majority was led by Geiger and [[Ludwig Philippson]] and was keen on moderation and historical continuity.

The harsh response from the strictly Orthodox came as no surprise. [[Moshe Schick]] declared "they have blasphemed against the Divinity of the Law, they are no Israelites and equal to Gentiles". Yet they also managed to antagonize more moderate progressives. Both [[S. L. Rapoport]] and [[Zecharias Frankel]] strongly condemned Braunschweig. Another discontented party were [[Christian missionaries]], who feared Reform on two accounts: it could stem the massive tide of conversions, and loosen Jewish piety in favor of liberal, semi-secularized religion that they opposed among Christians as well, reducing the possibility they would ever accept new dogma fully.<ref>Meyer, ''Judaism Within Modernity'', p. 135.</ref>

Frankel was convinced to attend the next conference, held in Frankfurt on 15–28 July 1845, after many pleas. But he walked out after it passed a resolution that there were subjective, but no objective, arguments for retaining Hebrew in the liturgy. While this was quite a trivial statement, well grounded in canonical sources, Frankel regarded it as a deliberate breach with tradition and irreverence toward the collective Jewish sentiment. The 1840s, commented Meyer, saw the crystallization of Reform, narrowing from ''reformers (in the generic sense)'' who wished to modernize Judaism to some degree or other (including both Frankel and the Neo-Orthodox [[Samson Raphael Hirsch]]) ''a broad stream that embraced all opponents of the premodern status quo... to a more clearly marked current which rejected not only the religious mentality of the ghetto, but also the modernist Orthodoxy which altered form but not substance''.<ref>Meyer, ''Response'', p. ix, 180.</ref> After his withdrawal, the conference adopted another key doctrine that Frankel opposed, and officially enshrined the idea of a future Messianic era rather than a personal redeemer. Rabbi David Einhorn elucidated a further notion, that of the Mission to bring ethical monotheism to all people, commenting that, "Exile was once perceived as a disaster, but it was progress. Israel approached its true destiny, with sanctity replacing blood sacrifice. It was to spread the Word of the Lord to the four corners of the earth."

The last meeting, convened in Breslau (13–24 July 1846), was the most innocuous. The Sabbath, widely desecrated by the majority of German Jews, was discussed. Participants argued whether leniencies for civil servants should be enacted but could not agree and released a general statement about its sanctity. Holdheim shocked the assembled when he proposed his "Second Sabbath" scheme, astonishing even the radical wing, and his motion was rejected offhand. They did vote to eliminate the [[Yom tov sheni shel galuyot|Second Day of Festivals]], noting it was both an irrelevant rabbinic ordinance and scarcely observed anyway.

While eliciting protest from the Orthodox, Frankfurt and Breslau also incensed the radical laity, which regarded them as too acquiescent. In March 1845, a small group formed a semi-independent congregation in Berlin, the Reformgemeinde. They invited Holdheim to serve as their rabbi, though he was often at odds with the board led by Sigismund Stern. They instituted a drastically abridged prayerbook in German and allowed the abolition of most ritual aspects.

Practice and liturgy were modified in numerous German congregations. Until the conferences, the only Reform prayerbooks ever printed in Europe were the two Hamburg editions. In the 1850s and 1860s, dozens of new prayerbooks which omitted or rephrased the cardinal theological segments of temple sacrifice, ingathering of exiles, Messiah, resurrection and angels – rather than merely abbreviating the service; excising non-essential parts, especially [[piyyutim]], was common among moderate Orthodox and conservatives too<ref>For example: Todd M. Endelman, ''The Jews of Britain, 1656 to 2000''. University of California Press, 2002. p. 167; [[David Ellenson]], ''[https://www.academia.edu/37665755 The Mannheimer Prayerbooks and Modern Central European Communal Liturgies: A Representative Comparison of Mid-Nineteenth Century Works]''.</ref> – were authored in Germany for mass usage, demonstrating the prevalence of the new religious ideology. And yet, Geiger and most of the conferences' participants were far more moderate than Holdheim. While he administered in a homogeneous group, they had to serve in unified communities, in which traditionalists held separate services but still had to be respected. Changes were decidedly restrained. Liturgists were often careful when introducing their changes into the Hebrew text of prayers, less than with the German translation, and some level of traditional observance was maintained in public. Except Berlin, where the term "Reform" was first used as an adjective, the rest referred to themselves as "Liberal".

Two further rabbinical conferences much later, in 1869 and 1871 at [[Leipzig]] and [[Augsburg]] respectively, were marked with a cautious tone. Their only outcome was the bypassing of the [[Chalitza|Loosening of the Shoe]] ceremony via a prenuptial agreement and the establishment of the [[Hochschule für die Wissenschaft des Judentums]], though officially non-denominational, as a rabbinical seminary. While common, noted Michael Meyer, the designation "Liberal Jew" was more associated with political persuasion than religious conviction. The general Jewish public in Germany demonstrated little interest, especially after the [[Kulturkampf|1876 law]] under which communal affiliation and paying parish taxes were no longer mandatory.<ref name="LJG">Meyer, ''Response'', pp. 185–188, 210; Michael Meyer, ''Deutsch-jüdische Geschichte in der Neuzeit: Band 3''', C.H. Beck, 1997. pp. 100–110.</ref>

Outside Germany, Reform had little to no influence in the rest of the continent. Radical lay societies sprang in Hungary during the [[1848 revolution in Hungary|1848 Revolution]] but soon dispersed. Only in Germany, commented Steven M. Lowenstein, did the extinction of old Jewish community life led to the creation of a new, positive religious ideology that advocated principled change.<ref>Lowenstein, ''The 1840s'', p. 256.</ref> In Western and Central Europe, personal observance disappeared, but the public was not interested in bridging the gap between themselves and the official faith. Secular education for clergy became mandated by mid-century, and ''[[yeshiva]]s'' all closed due to lack of applicants, replaced by modern seminaries; the new academically trained rabbinate, whether affirming basically traditional doctrines or liberal and influenced by ''Wissenschaft'', was scarcely prone to anything beyond aesthetic modifications and de facto tolerance of the laity's apathy. Further to the east, among the unemancipated and unacculturated Jewish masses in Poland, Romania and Russia, the stimulants that gave rise either to Reform or modernist Orthodoxy were scarce.<ref name="Low"/><ref>Meyer, ''Response'', pp. 154–160, 168–170, 195–200.</ref> The few rich and westernized Jews in cities like [[Brodsky Synagogue Odessa|Odessa]] or [[Great Synagogue, Warsaw|Warsaw]] constructed modern synagogues where mild aesthetic reforms, like vernacular sermons or holding the [[Chuppah|wedding canopy]] indoors, rather than under the sky, were introduced. Regarded as boldly innovative in their environs, these were long since considered trivial even by the most Orthodox in Germany, [[Bohemia]] or [[Moravia]]. In the east, the belated breakdown of old mores led not to the remodification of religion, but to the formulation of [[Jewish secularism|secular conceptions of Jewishness]], especially [[Auto-Emancipation|nationalistic ones]].<ref>Meyer, ''Judaism Within Modernity'', pp. 278–279; ''Response'', p. 200.</ref>

In 1840, several British Jews formed the [[West London Synagogue of British Jews]], headed by Reverend [[David Woolf Marks]]. While the title "Reform" was occasionally applied to them, their approach was described as "neo-[[Karaite Judaism|Karaite]]" and was utterly opposite to continental developments. Only a century later did they and other synagogues embrace mainland ideas and established the British [[Movement for Reform Judaism]].<ref name="Lang"/>

===America and Classical Reform===
[[File:Wise-1.jpg|upright=0.6|thumb|right|[[Isaac Meyer Wise]].]]
[[File:David Einhorn.jpg|upright=0.65|thumb|right|Rabbi [[David Einhorn (rabbi)|David Einhorn]].]]
[[File:Kaufmann Kohler.jpg|upright=0.65|thumb|right|Rabbi [[Kaufmann Kohler]].]]
At Charleston, the former members of the Reformed Society gained influence over the affairs of ''Beth Elohim''. In 1836, [[Gustavus Poznanski]] was appointed minister. At first traditional, but around 1841, he excised the Resurrection of the Dead and abolished the [[Second day of festivals]], five years before the same was done at the Breslau conference.

Apart from that, the American Reform movement was chiefly a direct German import. In 1842, [[Har Sinai Congregation]] was founded by German-Jewish immigrants in Baltimore. Adopting the Hamburg rite, it was the first synagogue established as Reformed on the continent. In the new land, there were neither old state-mandated communal structures, nor strong conservative elements among the newcomers. While the first generation was still somewhat traditional, their Americanized children were keen on a new religious expression. Reform quickly spread even before the Civil War. While fueled by the condition of immigrant communities, in matters of doctrine, wrote Michael Meyer, "However much a response to its particular social context, the basic principles are those put forth by Geiger and the other German Reformers – progressive revelation, historical-critical approach, the centrality of the Prophetic literature."<ref>Michael A. Meyer, ''Judaism Within Modernity: Essays on Jewish History and Religion'', Wayne State University Press, 2001. p. 108.</ref>

The rabbinate was almost exclusively transplanted – Rabbis [[Samuel Hirsch]], [[Samuel Adler (rabbi)|Samuel Adler]], [[Gustav Gottheil]], [[Kaufmann Kohler]], and others all played a role both in Germany and across the ocean – and led by two individuals: the radical Rabbi [[David Einhorn (rabbi)|David Einhorn]], who participated in the 1844–1846 conferences and was very much influenced by Holdheim (though utterly rejecting mixed marriage), and the moderate pragmatist [[Isaac Meyer Wise]], who while sharing deeply heterodox views was more an organizer than a thinker. Wise was distinct from the others, arriving early in 1846 and lacking much formal education. He was of little ideological consistency, often willing to compromise.

Quite haphazardly, Wise instituted a major innovation when introducing family pews in 1851, after his [[Albany, New York|Albany]] congregation purchased a local church building and retained sitting arrangements. While it was gradually adopted even by many Orthodox Jews in America, and remained so well into the 20th century, the same was not applied in Germany until after World War II. Wise attempted to reach consensus with the traditionalist leader Rabbi [[Isaac Leeser]] in order to forge a single, unified, American Judaism. In the 1855 [[Cleveland]] Synod, he was at first acquiescent to Leeser, but reverted immediately after the other departed. The enraged Leeser disavowed any connection with him. Yet Wise's harshest critic was Einhorn, who arrived from Europe in the same year. Demanding clear positions, he headed the radical camp as Reform turned into a distinct current.

On 3–6 November 1869, the two and their followers met in [[Philadelphia]]. Described by Meyer as American Reform's "declaration of independence", they stated their commitment to the principles already formulated in Germany: [[Kohen|priestly privileges]], the belief in Resurrection, and a personal Messiah were denied. A practical, far-reaching measure, not instituted in the home country until 1910, was acceptance of civil marriage and divorce. A ''[[Get (divorce document)|get]]'' was no longer required. In 1873, Wise founded the [[Union of American Hebrew Congregations]] (since 2003, Union for Reform Judaism), the denominational body. In 1875, he established the movement's rabbinical seminary, [[Hebrew Union College]], at [[Cincinnati, Ohio]]. He and Einhorn also quarreled in the matter of liturgy, each issuing his own prayerbook, ''Minhag America'' (American Rite) and ''Olat Tamid'' (Regular [[Burnt offering (Judaism)|Burnt Offering]]) respectively, which they hoped to make standard issue. Eventually, the [[Union Prayer Book]] was adopted in 1895. The movement spread rapidly: in 1860, when it began its ascent, there were few Reform synagogues and 200 Orthodox in the United States. By 1880, a mere handful of the existing 275 were not affiliated with it.<ref>Jack Wertheimer, ''The American Synagogue: A Sanctuary Transformed'', Cambridge University Press, 2003. p. 43.</ref>

The proponents of Reform or progressive forms of Judaism had consistently claimed since the early nineteenth-century that they sought to reconcile Jewish religion with the best of contemporary scientific thought. The science of evolution was arguably the scientific idea that drew the most sustained interest. A good example is the series of twelve sermons published as ''The Cosmic God'' (1876) by [[Isaac Meyer Wise]], who offered an alternative theistic account of transmutation to that of Darwinism, which he dismissed as ‘homo-brutalism’. Other Reform rabbis who were more sympathetic to Darwinian conceptions of evolution were [[Kaufmann Kohler]], [[Emil G. Hirsch]], and [[Joseph Krauskopf]]. These engaged with high-profile sceptics and atheists such as [[Robert G. Ingersoll|Robert Ingersoll]] and [[Felix Adler (professor)|Felix Adler]]<ref>Langton, Daniel R. "Discourses of Doubt: The Place of Atheism, Scepticism and Infidelity in Nineteenth-Century North American Reform Jewish Thought" in Hebrew Union College Annual (2018) Vol.88. pp. 203–253.</ref> as well as with proponents of biological evolutionary theory, with the result that a distinctly [[panentheistic]] character of US Reform Jewish theology was observable.<ref>Daniel R. Langton, ''Reform Judaism and Darwin: How Engaging with Evolutionary Theory shaped American Jewish Religion'' (Berlin: de Gruyter, Walter GmbH & Co, 2019).</ref>

In 1885, Reform Judaism in America was confronted by challenges from both flanks. To the left, [[Felix Adler (professor)|Felix Adler]] and his [[Ethical Movement]] rejected the need for the Jews to exist as a differentiated group. On the right, the recently arrived Rabbi [[Alexander Kohut]], an adherent of [[Zecharias Frankel]], lambasted it for having abandoned traditional Judaism. Einhorn's son-in-law and chief ideologue, Rabbi [[Kaufmann Kohler]], invited leading rabbis to formulate a response. The eight clauses of the [[Pittsburgh Platform]] were proclaimed on 19 November. It added virtually nothing new to the tenets of Reform, but rather elucidated them, declaring unambiguously that: "Today, we accept as binding only the moral laws, and maintain only such ceremonies as elevate and sanctify our lives." The platform was never officially ratified by either the UAHC or HUC, and many of their members even attempted to disassociate from it, fearing that its radical tone would deter potential allies. It indeed motivated a handful of conservatives to cease any cooperation with the movement and withdraw their constituencies from the UAHC. Those joined Kohut and [[Sabato Morais]] in establishing the [[Jewish Theological Seminary of America]]. It united all non-Reform currents in the country and would gradually develop into the locus of [[Conservative Judaism]].

The Pittsburgh Platform is considered a defining document of the sanitized and rationalistic "Classical Reform", dominant from the 1860s to the 1930s. At its height, some forty congregations adopted the Sunday Sabbath and UAHC communities had services without most traditional elements, in a manner seen in Europe only at the Berlin [[Reformgemeinde]]. In 1889, Wise founded the [[Central Conference of American Rabbis]] (CCAR), the denominational rabbinic council.

However, change loomed on the horizon. From 1881 to 1924, over 2,400,000 immigrants from Eastern Europe drastically altered American Jewry, increasing it tenfold. The 40,000 members of Reform congregations became a small minority overnight. The newcomers arrived from backward regions, where modern education was scarce and civil equality nonexistent, retaining a strong sense of Jewish ethnicity. Even the ideological secularists among them, all the more so the common masses which merely turned lax or nonobservant, had a very traditional understanding of worship and religious conduct. The leading intellectuals of Eastern European Jewish nationalism castigated western Jews in general, and Reform Judaism in particular, not on theological grounds which they as laicists wholly rejected, but for what they claimed to be assimilationist tendencies and the undermining of peoplehood. This sentiment also fueled the manner in which the denomination is perceived in [[State of israel|Israeli]] society, originally established on the basis of these ideologies.<ref>Meyer, ''Response'', pp. 292–294, 350.</ref>

While at first alienated from all native modernized Jews, [[a fortiori]] the Reform ones, the Eastern Europeans did slowly integrate. Growing numbers did begin to enter UAHC prayerhouses. The CCAR soon readopted elements long discarded in order to appeal to them: In the 1910s, inexperienced rabbis in the [[East Coast of the United States|East Coast]] were given as [[shofar]]s ram horns fitted with a trumpet mouthpiece, seventy years after the Reformgemeinde first held [[High Holiday]] prayers without blowing the instrument. The five-day workweek soon made the Sunday Sabbath redundant. Temples in the [[Southern United States|South]] and the [[Midwest]], where the new crowd was scant, remained largely Classical.

===The World Union===
[[File:MontefioreCG.jpg|right|thumb|[[Claude Montefiore]].]]
In Germany, Liberal communities stagnated since mid-century. Full and complete [[Jewish emancipation]] granted to all in the [[German Empire]] in 1871 largely diffused interest in harmonizing religion with ''Zeitgeist''. Immigration from Eastern Europe also strengthened traditional elements. In 1898, seeking to counter these trends, Rabbi [[Heinemann Vogelstein]] established the Union of Liberal Rabbis (Vereinigung der liberalen Rabbiner). It numbered 37 members at first and grew to include 72 by 1914, about half of Germany's Jewish clergy, a proportion maintained until 1933. In 1908, Vogelstein and Rabbi [[Cäsar Seligmann]] also founded a congregational arm, the Union for Liberal Judaism in Germany (''Vereinigung für das Liberale Judentum in Deutschland''), finally institutionalizing the current that until then was active as a loose tendency. The Union had some 10,000 registered members in the 1920s. In 1912, Seligmann drafted a declaration of principles, "Guiding Lines towards a Program for Liberal Judaism" (Richtlinien zu einem Programm für das liberale Judentum). It stressed the importance of individual consciousness and the supremacy of ethical values to ritual practice, declared a belief in a messianic age and was adopted as "a recommendation", rather than a binding decision.

In 1902, [[Claude Montefiore]] and several friends, including [[Lily Montagu]] and [[Israel Abrahams]], founded the Jewish Religious Union (JRU) in London. It served as the cornerstone of [[Liberal Judaism (UK)|Liberal Judaism]] in Britain. Montefiore was greatly influenced by the ideas of early German Reformers. He and his associates were mainly driven by the example and challenge of [[General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches|Unitarianism]], which offered upper-class Jews a universal, enlightened belief. Meyer noted that while he had original strains, Montefiore was largely dependent on Geiger and his concepts of progressive revelation, instrumentality of ritual et cetera. His Liberal Judaism was radical and puristic, matching and sometimes exceeding the Berlin and American variants. They sharply abridged liturgy and largely discarded practice.<ref>Meyer, ''Response to Modernity'', p. 214–215; Michael A. Meyer, ''Judaism Within Modernity'', pp. 309–324.</ref> Langton has argued for the distinctly Anglo-Jewish character of the movement, which was dominated by Montefiore's idiosyncratic ideas.<ref>Langton, Daniel R. ''Claude Montefiore: His Life and Thought'' (London: Vallentine Mitchell), Parkes-Wiener Series on Jewish Studies. {{ISBN|0853033765}}</ref>
In 1907, the former [[Central Consistory|Consistorial]] rabbi [[Louis Germain Lévy]] who shared a similar worldview, formed the [[Union Libérale Israélite de France]], a small congregation that numbered barely a hundred families. It eventually evolved into the [[Liberal Jewish Movement of France]].

Seligmann first suggested the creation of an international organization. On 10 July 1926, representatives from around the world gathered in London. Rabbi Jacob K. Shankman wrote they were all "animated by the convictions of Reform Judaism: emphasized the Prophets' teachings as the cardinal element, progressive revelation, willingness to adapt ancient forms to contemporary needs".<ref>Jacob K. Shankman, ''Essays in honor of Solomon B. Freehof'', Rodef Shalom, 1964. p. 129.</ref> The conference was attended by representatives of the German Liberal Union, the British JRU, the American UAHC and CCAR, and Lévy from France. After weighing their options, they chose "Progressive", rather than either "Liberal" or "Reform", as their name, founding the [[World Union for Progressive Judaism]]. It began to sponsor new chapters globally. The first was founded in the [[Netherlands]], where two synagogues formed the [[Verbond voor Liberaal-Religieuze Joden in Nederland]] on 18 October 1931.

Already in 1930, the [[West London Synagogue]] affiliated with WUPJ. In the coming decade, waves of refugees from [[Nazi Germany]] arrived in Britain, bringing with them both the moderation of German Liberal Judaism (few mingled with the radical JRU) and a cadre of trained rabbis. Only then did British Reform emerge as a movement. 1942 saw the founding of the Associated British Synagogues, which joined the WUPJ in 1945. Preserving the relative traditionalism of Germany, they later adopted the name "Reform Synagogues of Great Britain" (since 2005, [[Movement for Reform Judaism]]), distinct from the smaller "[[Union of Liberal and Progressive Synagogues]]", which succeeded the JRU.<ref name="Lang">Daniel R. Langton, "A Question of Backbone: Contrasting Christian Influences upon the Origins of Reform and Liberal Judaism in England", in: ''Melilah; Manchester Journal for Jewish Studies'' 3(2004), pp. 1–47.</ref><ref>Geoffrey Alderman, ''Modern British Jewry'', Oxford University Press, 1998. p. 354.</ref> Tens of thousands of refugees from Germany brought their Liberal Judaism to other lands as well. In 1930, the first Liberal congregation, Temple Beth Israel [[Melbourne]], was founded in [[Australia]]. In June 1931, the South African Jewish Religious Union for Liberal Judaism was organised, soon employing HUC-ordained [[Moses Cyrus Weiler]]. The [[Congregação Israelita Paulista]] of [[São Paulo]], first branch in South America, was established in 1936. German refugees also founded a Liberal community named ''Emet ve-Emuna'' in [[Jerusalem]], but it joined the Conservatives by 1949.

===The New Reform Judaism===
[[File:ReformJewishService.jpg|upright=1.25|thumb|right|Contemporary Reform service held in [[Sinai Synagogue (Leeds)|Sinai Synagogue]], with some congregants wearing head coverings and prayer shawls.]]
Kohler retired in 1923. Rabbi [[Samuel S. Cohon]] was appointed HUC Chair of Theology in his stead, serving until 1956. Cohon, born near [[Minsk]], was emblematic of the new generation of East European-descended clergy within American Reform. Deeply influenced by [[Ahad Ha'am]] and [[Mordecai Kaplan]], he viewed [[Judaism as a Civilization]], rather than a religion, though he and other Reform sympathizers of Kaplan fully maintained the notions of [[Jews as the chosen people|Election]] and revelation, which the latter denied. Cohon valued Jewish particularism over universalist leanings, encouraging the reincorporation of traditional elements long discarded, not as part of a comprehensive legalistic framework but as means to rekindle ethnic cohesion.<ref name="Eis">Arnold M. Eisen, ''The Chosen People in America: A Study in Jewish Religious Ideology'', [[Indiana University Press]] (1983), {{ISBN|9780253114129}}. pp. 59–65.</ref> His approach echoed popular sentiment in the East Coast. So did [[Solomon Freehof]], son to immigrants from [[Chernihiv]], who advocated a selective rapprochement with ''halakha'', which was to offer "guidance, not governance"; Freehof advocated replacing the sterile mood of community life, allowing isolated practices to emerge spontaneously and reincorporating old ones. He redrafted the [[Union Prayer Book]] in 1940 to include more old formulae and authored many responsa, though he always stressed compliance was voluntary.<ref>[[Joan Friedman|Joan S. Friedman]], ''"Guidance, Not Governance": Rabbi Solomon B. Freehof and Reform Responsa'', Hebrew Union College Press (2013). {{ISBN|9780878204670}}. pp. 68–80.</ref>

Cohon and Freehof rose against the background of the [[Great Depression]], when many congregations teetered on the threshold of collapse. Growing Antisemitism in Europe led German Liberals on similar paths. Rabbis [[Leo Baeck]], [[Max Dienemann]] and Seligmann himself turned to stressing Jewish peoplehood and tradition. The [[Machtergreifung|Nazis' takeover in 1933]] effected a religious revival in communities long plagued by apathy and assimilation. The great changes convinced the CCAR to adopt a new set of principles. On 29 May 1937, in [[Columbus, Ohio]], a "Declaration of Principles" (eschewing the more formal, binding "platform"), promoted a greater degree of ritual observance, supported Zionism – considered by the Classicists in the past as, at best, a remedy for the unemancipated Jewish masses in Russia and Romania, while they did not regard the Jews as a nation in the modern sense – and opened not with theology, but by the statement, "Judaism is the historical religious experience of the Jewish people". The Columbus Principles signified the transformation from "Classical" to the "New Reform Judaism", characterized by a lesser focus on abstract concepts and a more positive attitude to practice and traditional elements.<ref name="Neusner1993" /><ref>Dana Evan Kaplan, ''The Cambridge Companion to American Judaism'', Cambridge University Press, 2005. {{ISBN|9780521529518}}. pp. 119–123.</ref>

The [[Holocaust]] and the establishment of the [[State of Israel]] reinforced the tendency. The Americanization and move to the suburbs in the 1950s facilitated a double effect: the secular Jewish ideologies of the immigrants' generation, like [[Bundism]] or [[Labour Zionism]], became anachronistic. Military service exposed recruits to the family-oriented, moderate religiosity of middle-class America. Many sought an affiliation in the early years of the [[Cold War]], when lack of such raised suspicion of leftist or communist sympathies. The "Return to Tradition", as it was termed, smoothed the path for many such into UAHC. It grew from 290 communities with 50,000 affiliated households in 1937 to 560 with 255,000 in 1956. A similar shift to nostalgic traditionalism was expressed overseas. Even the purist Liberals in Britain introduced minor customs that bore sentimental value; [[Bar Mitzvah]] replaced confirmation.<ref name=DEK>Dana Evan Kaplan ''The New Reform Judaism: Challenges and Reflections'', University of Nebraska Press (2013). {{ISBN|9780827611337}}. pp. 260–263.</ref><ref name="UbR">[[Jakob Josef Petuchowski|J. J. Petuchowski]], ''Reform Judaism: Undone by Revival'', [[First Things]], January 1992.</ref>

World War II shattered many of the assumptions about human progress and benevolence held by liberal denominations, Reform included. A new generation of theologians attempted to formulate a response. Thinkers such as [[Eugene Borowitz]] and J.J. Petuchowski turned mainly to [[existentialism]], portraying humans in a fragile, complex relationship with the divine. While [[religious humanism]] was ever-present, it remained confined to a small group, and official positions retained a [[theist]]ic approach. But the main focus in American Reform lay elsewhere: in 1946, Rabbi [[Maurice Eisendrath]] was appointed President of the UAHC. He turned the notion of [[Tikkun Olam]], "repairing of the world", into the practical expression of affiliation, leading involvement in the [[civil rights movement]], [[Vietnam War opposition]] and other progressive causes. In 1954, the first permanent Reform congregation was established in the State of Israel, again at Jerusalem. The [[Israel Movement for Reform and Progressive Judaism]] was registered in 1971, and the worldwide movement moved the WUPJ's headquarters to Jerusalem in 1974, signalling its growing attachment to Zionism.

The 1960s and 70s saw the rise of [[multiculturalism]] and the weakening of organized religion in favour of personal spirituality. A growing "return to ethnicity" among the young made items such as [[tallit|prayer shawls]] fashionable again. In 1963, HUC-graduate [[Sherwin Wine]] seceded to form the openly atheistic [[Birmingham Temple]], declaring that for him Judaism was a cultural tradition, not a faith. Knowing that many in their audience held quite overlapping ideas, the pressure on the CCAR to move toward nontheism grew.<ref name="JWB">Kaplan, ''Contemporary Debates'', pp. 136–142, 242–270.</ref>

In 1975, the lack of consensus surfaced during the compilation of a new standard prayer book, "[[Gates of Prayer]]". To accommodate all, ten liturgies for morning service and six for the evening were offered for each congregation to choose of, from very traditional to one that retained the Hebrew text for God but translated it as "Eternal Power", condemned by many as de facto humanistic. "Gates of Prayer" symbolized the movement's adoption of what would be termed "Big Tent Judaism", welcoming all, over theological clarity. In the following year, an attempt to draft a new platform for the CCAR in San Francisco ended with poor results. Led by Borowitz, any notion of issuing guidelines was abandoned in favour of a "Centenary Perspective" with few coherent statements.<ref>Dana Evan Kaplan, ''Contemporary American Judaism: Transformation and Renewal'', Columbia University Press, 2013, pp. 119–121.</ref> The "Big Tent", while taking its toll on the theoreticians, did substantially bolster constituency. The UAHC slowly caught up with [[Conservative Judaism]] on the path toward becoming the largest American denomination.<ref name="Sar"/> Yet it did not erase boundaries completely and rejected outright those who held [[syncretic]] beliefs like [[Jewbu]] and [[Messianic Judaism]], and also Sherwin Wine-style [[Humanistic Judaism|Secular Humanistic Judaism]]. [[Congregation Beth Adam]], which excised all references to God from its liturgy, was denied UAHC membership by a landslide vote of 113:15 in 1994.<ref name="JWB"/>

In 1972, the first Reform female rabbi, [[Sally Priesand]], was ordained at HUC. In 1977, the CCAR declared that the biblical ban on male same-sex intercourse referred only to the pagan customs prevalent at the time it was composed, and gradually accepted openly LGBT constituents and clergy. The first LGBT rabbi, [[Stacy Offner]], was instated in 1988, and full equality was declared in 1990. Same-sex marriage guidelines were published in 1997. In 1978, UAHC President [[Alexander Schindler]] admitted that measures aimed at curbing intermarriage rates by various sanctions, whether on the concerned parties or on rabbis assisting or acknowledging them (ordinances penalizing such involvement were passed in 1909, 1947 and 1962), were no longer effective. He called for a policy of outreach and tolerance, rejecting "intermarriage, but not the intermarried", hoping to convince gentile spouses to convert. In 1983, the CCAR accepted patrilineal descent, a step taken by British Liberals already in the 1950s. UAHC membership grew by 23% in 1975–1985, to 1.3 million. An estimated 10,000 intermarried couples were joining annually.<ref name="Sar">[[Jonathan Sarna]], ''Contemporary Reform Judaism: A Historical Perspective'', in: Rosenak, ''היהדות הרפורמית'', pp. 499–509.</ref><ref>Joseph Berger, [https://www.nytimes.com/1985/11/01/us/rise-of-23-noted-in-reform-judaism.html "Rise of 23% Noted in Reform Judaism"], ''[[The New York Times]]'', 1 November 1985.</ref>

On 26 May 1999, after a prolonged debate and six widely different drafts rejected, a "Statement of Principles for Reform Judaism" was adopted in Pittsburgh by the Central Conference of American Rabbis. It affirmed the "reality and oneness of God", the Torah as "God's ongoing revelation to our people" and committed to the "ongoing study of the whole array of Commandments and to the fulfillment of those that address us as individuals and as a community. Some of these sacred obligations have long been observed by Reform Jews; others, both ancient and modern, demand renewed attention." While the wording was carefully crafted in order not to displease the estimated 20%–25% of membership that retained Classicist persuasions, it did raise condemnation from many of them.<ref>Kaplan, ''An Introduction'', pp. 236–238.</ref> In 2008, the [[Society for Classical Reform Judaism]] was founded to mobilize and coordinate those who preferred the old universalist, ethics-based and less-observant religious style, with its unique aesthetic components. SCRJ leader, Rabbi Howard A. Berman, claimed that the neo-traditional approach, adopted by the URJ, alienated more congregants than those it drew in.<ref>Kaplan, ''Challenges and Reflections''. p. 89; [https://www.jta.org/2009/12/09/lifestyle/classical-reform-revival-pushes-back-against-embrace-of-tradition "Classical Reform revival pushes back against embrace of tradition"]. [[Jewish Telegraphic Agency]], 9 December 2009.</ref>